(PC) Arrant v. Santoro et al

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/17/2020. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION, AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 30, 2020, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff

18

stated separate claims for retaliation against Defendant Lozano, Garcia, Dodson, Herrera, Valdez,

19

Felix, Florez, and Chanelo, and separate excessive force claims against Defendants Florez and Tapia.

20

(ECF No. 11.) However, Plaintiff was advised that he failed to state any other cognizable claims.

21

(Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff was advised that he could file an amended complaint or a notice of intent to

22

proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id.)

23

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed only on the retaliation and

24

excessive force claims and dismiss all other claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff also

25

seeks reconsideration and clarification as to whether he has stated a cognizable retaliation claim

26

against Defendant Tapia based on his allegations that he used excessive force because he filed

27

complaints. Upon review of the factual allegations in the complaint, the Court agrees with Plaintiff

28

that he has stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Tapia for using excessive force in
1

1

retaliation for filing a grievance and complaint against his partner. (Compl. at 22-23; ECF No. 11 at

2

8-9.)
Based on Plaintiff’s November 12, 2020 notice, the Court will recommend that this action

3
4

proceed against Defendants Defendant Lozano, Garcia, Dodson, Herrera, Valdez, Felix, Florez,

5

Chanelo, and Tapia for retaliation as explained herein and in the Court’s October 30, 2020 screening

6

order, and separate excessive force claims against Defendants Florez and Tapia. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

8

(2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9

1.

10

This action proceed against Defendants Lozano, Garcia, Dodson, Herrera, Valdez,

11

Felix, Florez, Chanelo, and Tapia for retaliation, and separate excessive force claims

12

against Defendants Florez and Tapia; and
2.

13

All other claims and Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim
for relief.

14

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15
16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

17

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

18

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

19

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

20

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

21

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

November 17, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2